Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wbf Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Workers Benefit Fund holds $114.7M; agency discusses restoring assessment to 2¢
Summary
DCBS economists reported a WBF balance of about $114.7 million (roughly 17 months of projected expenditures), described a one'time $14.68 million transfer to a new BOLI fund and the impact of lowering the assessment to 1.8¢ per hour, and signaled that a return to 2¢ per hour remains under active consideration.
Kelly Bruschow, senior economist for the Department of Consumer and Business Services, reported the workers benefit fund (WBF) had "a fund balance of a $114,700,000" and a coverage level she described as "just over 17 months of projected expenditures." The presentation noted the current assessment rate is 1.8¢ per hour for calendar year 2026 and that quarterly assessment revenue is roughly $15 million, or "just under $60,000,000 in revenue per year."
Bruschow told the committee the WBF forecast reflects three drivers: the lowered assessment rate (reducing revenue by about $6.5 million per year), a planned one'time transfer of $14,680,000 to the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) Wage Security Fund for the current biennium, and relatively stable program expenditures. Director O'Day said the agency is "operating this fund in a deficit intentionally" to gently draw down the balance and that, in a stable economy, "the 2¢ per hour really brings in about the right amount of revenue" to match current expenditures.
The presentation included program'level detail: the retroactive program paid $38.6 million in fiscal year 2025, the reemployment assistance program paid about $25.5 million, and DCBS estimates the WBF's long'term liability at about $875,000,000 as of the most recent valuation. Bruschow also noted administrative costs of just over $6.9 million in FY25 and said the 2026'27 biennium will show a temporary administrative increase as the BOLI transfer is disbursed in quarterly installments.
Committee members pressed on whether the transfer and lower rate would force steeper rate changes later; Bruschow and Director O'Day said annual rate'setting is the mechanism to respond, that a 0.2¢ change brings in about $6.5 million a year, and that any sustained change in the assessment rate will be set with the most recent economic data. The committee did not vote on any rate change at the meeting; staff said the forthcoming rate'setting process and updated forecasts over the summer will inform any proposal.
